Is a person suffering from OCD using his 'free' will to triple-, quadruple-, and quintuple-check the car doors to make sure they're locked, and then -- having assured himself that they are indeed locked -- checking again (just to make sure)?

Is a person suffering from phobia using their free will to keep themselves locked indoors and away from people even though they are desperately sad and lonely?

The way I see it, 'free' will is not as free as we think.

Children are told a terrible lie when they are young: You can be anything you want to be! All you have to do is want it, and try hard, and you can be anything!

I actually believed that for a long time. And then I realized what an ego-pumping lie it was. We are limited. There is potential in every child, yes. But the real-world situations people grow up in are insufficient to allow for 6 billion astronauts or ballerinas or basketball stars, or even firemen. And that's not even considering that most people are simply physically not cut out for those jobs.

You cannot be or do anything you want. You are limited. Your will, too, is limited, far more than you think.

Have you heard of co-dependency? I think someone else mentioned it on this forum recently (or it might have been elsewhere, I forget now). It's a condition where you constantly worry about someone else, to the point where your life suffers for it. People who you would otherwise think of as 'normal' suffer from it, and I'm sure there are several you know without being aware of it.

Addiction is similar. There's a hole inside yourself that you need to fill with whatever it is that takes your pain away: alcohol, drugs, work, gambling, whatever.

Are co-dependents and addicts that way because of choice? Free will? Can one simply 'choose' not to feel deep-seated emotional pain?

I've come to the realization recently that 'freedom' is inversely related to ignorance. If you simply lack certain kinds of knowledge, you thereby lack certain kinds of abilities, and you thereby lack a potential freedom.

A co-dependent or an alcoholic *could* break their patterns of destructive behaviour, *if* they had the appropriate knowledge and skill to handle their emotions without getting caught up in them. They could go to group meetings to get emotional support. They could use meditation to reduce stress and worry. They could find alternative activities that would replace the destructive activities. If only they knew that these things would help them and also how to do them effectively (such as meditation, for example).

Religion plays on the average person's emotional weaknesses and their ignorance of how to manage their emotions without a crutch.

The way I see it, religion is like a pandemic disease that infects people with varying virulence.

For some people it is a mere affectation. Cultural Jews are a good example. The only reason they call themselves 'Jewish' is that they were born in the culture. They may not even practice any of the rituals or holidays. "But mom was a Jew, so I'm a Jew." Simple as that. This is like someone who has a scar from a Smallpox vaccination.

For some people, it's a harmless amorphous belief in 'something out there'. They have no clue what it is they believe in, really, but they just believe. This is like someone with a wart or a cold sore.

For some, it is compartmentalized, like someone who once had Chicken Pox, and still carries the virus, but it is dormant. There's a slight chance it might pop back into action and the person becomes more religious as they get older (like Shingles).

Then there are those who are actively infected, but it's really just a low-level background thing. These people go to church occasionally, celebrate holidays, and profess all the right professings, but aren't really serious about it. This is like someone with manageable AIDS. As long as they get their medication, they'll live a decently long life and if they keep it to themselves, no problem.

Then there are those who don't have any real serious diseases, but are always sick with some cold or flu or sore throat or whatever. This is the New Age and 'spiritual' crowd. They just have weak immune systems (poor rational thought).

Then there's the various flavours of serious diseases like devout Catholicism (syphillis), fundagelicals (cholera), and fundamentalist Islam (airborn ebola).

Now, of course this is a simplification. My point is that different people and different texts and different *interpretations* of those texts will result in different severity of infection.

So, no, for the majority of people religion doesn't 'hijack' the mind. It might hijack one part of the mind (compartmentalization), or it might just leave a scar (cultural affiliation).

But for others, and especially for certain interpretations of certain religions, there is serious risk of mind hijacking.

The way hijacking works, as I've described in the case of OCD, phobia, co-dependence, addiction, and other mental illnesses such as depression (non-organic), is that the religion uses intuitive metaphors, stories, images, rituals, etc. to evoke certain feelings. This is the basic mechanism. Depending on how the religion hooks into your emotions, you get different effects. Islam, for example hooks into shame, fear, and hatred to cause people to obsess and rage over 'insults' to Islam, apostates, and infidels, leading to you-know-what.

At the extreme end of religion, so-called mind-control cults, you get serious changes in personality as well. If you look into Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult responsible for the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway, there were devotees who's greatest desire was to become a 'spiritual clone' of the cult leader, Shoko Asahara.

If you don't consider that last point as indicative of hijacking the mind, then I don't know what would.

I'll leave you with this thought: I consider the religions to be separate from the people. The religions are stored (usually) in books. They get copied from books (or from people who've read the books) into people's minds. If it's a faint copy (Jesus was a cool guy), then the effect is minor. But there are people who take the books very seriously, the fundamentalists. And usually, the more fundamentalist you get, the more literally you take the book, and the more of the book you copy into your brain, the worse the effects are.

So, I would absolutely agree that many religions do in fact hijack people's minds.

I get so tired of Barbie and Ken optomism as if all 6 billion people will drive Hummers if they just work 80 hours a week and be a slave to ideology and cliche.

Certainly one can try, but what that false sale of placebo optimism gives way to, is that when one doesnt  reach the clechi  peak, many strike out, not because they are not worth something at their own level, but strike out because they falsely mesure themselves against others.

The garbage collector is as important as Donnald Trump. If Trump thinks he is more important, then he should have no problem dumping out his own garbage cans and transporting them to the dump by himself.

Even right wing talk show host Neil Bortz once quipped to the effect that he shouldn't pick on the poor otherwise some restorantee employee might spit in his food. DAMN RIGHT ASSHOLE!......If you walked into where I worked, I would wipe your burger with my ass!

It is one thing to want more, but it is another to look down on those who don't have what you have.

I think that the vast majority of people visualize porn either as mental imagery at one end or a hardcore gangbang video at the other. Some enjoy it in the context of a loving relationship and others can use it for exploitation. In any context erotic imagery (visual or text) plays upon our innate dispositions which for all but a weak few, it is harmless fun.

The question therefore is if religion can cause calamity among a vulnerable minority just like porn, should both be eliminated?